Adam P. Schwend, May 25, 2004

, HARDY MYERS
ATIORNEY GENERAL
Adam P, Schwend
Rose City Radio Corp,
0234 SW Bancroft
Portland, OR 97201-4237
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Justice Building
Salem, Oregon 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 378-4400
TTY: (503) 378-5938
May 25, 2004
Re: Petition for Public Records Disclosure Order:
Public Employees Retirement System Records
Dear Mr. Schwend:
PETER D. SHEPHERD
DEPUTY ATIORl\iEY GEJ\.lf.RAL
This letter is the Attorney General's order on your petition for disclosure ofrecords under
the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 to 192.505. Your petition, which we received on
May 19, 2004, asks the Attorney General to direct the Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) to make available the "[a]mount of money Gov. Neil Goldschmidt receives from PERS
yearly." For the reasons that follow, we respectfully deny your petition.
The Public Records Law confers a right to inspect any public records of a public body in
Oregon, subject to certain exemptions and limitations. See ORS 192.420. Any person denied
the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record of a state agency may petition the
Attorney General to review the record and determine if it may be withheld. ORS 192.450.
You made your request to PERS Communications Officer David Crosley on May 19.
Consistent with the contents of your petition, Mr. Crosley told us that he denied your request on
that date. He also told us that he made the denial based on his belief that the requested
information is exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.502(2). That statute exempts from
disclosure:
Information of a personal nature such as but not limited to that kept in a personal,
medical or similar file, if public disclosure would constitute an unreasonable
invasion of privacy, unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence
requires disclosure in the particular instance, The party seeking disclosure shall
have the burden of showing that public disclosure would not constitute an
unreasonable invasion of privacy.
Adam Schwend
May 24, 2004
Page 2
The exemption is not intended for the benefit of the public body. Its purpose is to protect the
privacy of individuals from unreasonable invasion. Jordan v. MVD, 308 Or 433, 440-42, 781
P2d 1203 (1989).
In 2002, we issued an order addressing whether a record containing PERS retirement
benefit information identifiable to a particular individual is exempt from disclosure under ORS
192.502(2). Public Record Order November 15, 2002, Jones/Voykto (2002 Order). The
information you requested from PERS, benefit amounts paid to an individual, is part of the
"PERS benefit information" at issue in the 2002 Order. Thus, we turn to the analysis in that
order in addressing your petition. 1
The initial question to be answered under ORS 192.502(2) is whether an amount of
money former Governor Goldschmidt may receive as PERS benefits is information of a personal
nature. In the 2002 Order, we reached the conclusion that such benefit information is of a
personal nature, stating: "It is clear to us that the benefit amount for [a] named retiree is
information that both relates to a particular person and is sufficiently peculiar to private concerns
to constitute information 'of a personal nature' for purposes of the personal privacy exemption."
2002 Order at 3. We reaffirm this conclusion in relation to your petition.
To be exempt under ORS 192.502(2), it must be the case that disclosure of the personal
information in question "would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy." An invasion of
privacy is unreasonable if"an ordinary reasonable person would deem [it] highly offensive."
Jordan, 308 Or at 442. In the 2002 Order, we concluded that disclosure ofretirement benefits
identifiable to an individual would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. We considered three
issues in reaching this conclusion. First, disclosure of retirement benefit information would
disclose personal information about an individual not involved in disclosure of other financial
information, such as a current employee's salary, including, for example, the decision to receive
benefits in a lump-sum payment. Second, disclosure of benefit payment information could make
retirees the subject of uninvited inquiries from persons promoting investment vehicles or other
items. Third, other provisions of Oregon law attest that an "ordinary reasonable person" would
deem disclosure by an employer of a former employee's retirement benefits "highly offensive."
2002 Order at 3; see ORS 192.550 to 192.595 (protecting certain private financial information
from certain types of disclosure); 192.559 (providing for civil liability upon disclosure). We do
not find any basis to alter this conclusion in regard to benefits that PERS may be paying to
former Governor Goldschmidt.2
Having concluded that disclosure of the requested information would constitute an
unreasonable invasion of former Governor Goldschmidt's privacy, the information is exempt
under ORS 192.502(2) "unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires
disclosure in [this] particular instance." While the 2002 Order found that the public interest did
1 We have enclosed a copy of the 2002 Order.
2 ORS 192.502(2) states that "[t]he party seeking disclosure shall have the burden of showing that public disclosure
would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy." Your petition is silent as to this issue, and we have
confirmed with Mr. Crosley that you offered no statement to him in this regard.
Adam Schwend
May 24, 2004
Page 3
not require disclosure of retirement benefit information pertaining to 32 individuals, the Order
contains no indication that any of those persons were public figures. Former Governor
Goldschmidt is a prominent public figure who has been the subject of recent media reports
addressing his personal conduct while holding public office. While public interest in that issue
may require disclosure of some public records, we find no connection between the subject of the
recent stories and PERS benefits that would require disclosure of the information you requested
from PERS. Given that your petition contains no reasons as to why the public interest requires
disclosure of the requested information, and we have found none, we deny your petition based on
the exemption stated in ORS 192.502(2).
PDS: AGS14082
Enclosure: 2002 Order

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

, HARDY MYERS
ATIORNEY GENERAL
Adam P, Schwend
Rose City Radio Corp,
0234 SW Bancroft
Portland, OR 97201-4237
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Justice Building
Salem, Oregon 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 378-4400
TTY: (503) 378-5938
May 25, 2004
Re: Petition for Public Records Disclosure Order:
Public Employees Retirement System Records
Dear Mr. Schwend:
PETER D. SHEPHERD
DEPUTY ATIORl\iEY GEJ\.lf.RAL
This letter is the Attorney General's order on your petition for disclosure ofrecords under
the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 to 192.505. Your petition, which we received on
May 19, 2004, asks the Attorney General to direct the Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) to make available the "[a]mount of money Gov. Neil Goldschmidt receives from PERS
yearly." For the reasons that follow, we respectfully deny your petition.
The Public Records Law confers a right to inspect any public records of a public body in
Oregon, subject to certain exemptions and limitations. See ORS 192.420. Any person denied
the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record of a state agency may petition the
Attorney General to review the record and determine if it may be withheld. ORS 192.450.
You made your request to PERS Communications Officer David Crosley on May 19.
Consistent with the contents of your petition, Mr. Crosley told us that he denied your request on
that date. He also told us that he made the denial based on his belief that the requested
information is exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.502(2). That statute exempts from
disclosure:
Information of a personal nature such as but not limited to that kept in a personal,
medical or similar file, if public disclosure would constitute an unreasonable
invasion of privacy, unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence
requires disclosure in the particular instance, The party seeking disclosure shall
have the burden of showing that public disclosure would not constitute an
unreasonable invasion of privacy.
Adam Schwend
May 24, 2004
Page 2
The exemption is not intended for the benefit of the public body. Its purpose is to protect the
privacy of individuals from unreasonable invasion. Jordan v. MVD, 308 Or 433, 440-42, 781
P2d 1203 (1989).
In 2002, we issued an order addressing whether a record containing PERS retirement
benefit information identifiable to a particular individual is exempt from disclosure under ORS
192.502(2). Public Record Order November 15, 2002, Jones/Voykto (2002 Order). The
information you requested from PERS, benefit amounts paid to an individual, is part of the
"PERS benefit information" at issue in the 2002 Order. Thus, we turn to the analysis in that
order in addressing your petition. 1
The initial question to be answered under ORS 192.502(2) is whether an amount of
money former Governor Goldschmidt may receive as PERS benefits is information of a personal
nature. In the 2002 Order, we reached the conclusion that such benefit information is of a
personal nature, stating: "It is clear to us that the benefit amount for [a] named retiree is
information that both relates to a particular person and is sufficiently peculiar to private concerns
to constitute information 'of a personal nature' for purposes of the personal privacy exemption."
2002 Order at 3. We reaffirm this conclusion in relation to your petition.
To be exempt under ORS 192.502(2), it must be the case that disclosure of the personal
information in question "would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy." An invasion of
privacy is unreasonable if"an ordinary reasonable person would deem [it] highly offensive."
Jordan, 308 Or at 442. In the 2002 Order, we concluded that disclosure ofretirement benefits
identifiable to an individual would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. We considered three
issues in reaching this conclusion. First, disclosure of retirement benefit information would
disclose personal information about an individual not involved in disclosure of other financial
information, such as a current employee's salary, including, for example, the decision to receive
benefits in a lump-sum payment. Second, disclosure of benefit payment information could make
retirees the subject of uninvited inquiries from persons promoting investment vehicles or other
items. Third, other provisions of Oregon law attest that an "ordinary reasonable person" would
deem disclosure by an employer of a former employee's retirement benefits "highly offensive."
2002 Order at 3; see ORS 192.550 to 192.595 (protecting certain private financial information
from certain types of disclosure); 192.559 (providing for civil liability upon disclosure). We do
not find any basis to alter this conclusion in regard to benefits that PERS may be paying to
former Governor Goldschmidt.2
Having concluded that disclosure of the requested information would constitute an
unreasonable invasion of former Governor Goldschmidt's privacy, the information is exempt
under ORS 192.502(2) "unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires
disclosure in [this] particular instance." While the 2002 Order found that the public interest did
1 We have enclosed a copy of the 2002 Order.
2 ORS 192.502(2) states that "[t]he party seeking disclosure shall have the burden of showing that public disclosure
would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy." Your petition is silent as to this issue, and we have
confirmed with Mr. Crosley that you offered no statement to him in this regard.
Adam Schwend
May 24, 2004
Page 3
not require disclosure of retirement benefit information pertaining to 32 individuals, the Order
contains no indication that any of those persons were public figures. Former Governor
Goldschmidt is a prominent public figure who has been the subject of recent media reports
addressing his personal conduct while holding public office. While public interest in that issue
may require disclosure of some public records, we find no connection between the subject of the
recent stories and PERS benefits that would require disclosure of the information you requested
from PERS. Given that your petition contains no reasons as to why the public interest requires
disclosure of the requested information, and we have found none, we deny your petition based on
the exemption stated in ORS 192.502(2).
PDS: AGS14082
Enclosure: 2002 Order